get_tiktok_comment_replies

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the return format (JSON with each reply same structure as a comment) and pagination behavior. However, it does not disclose potential issues like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds context about reply structure, and the third provides pagination instructions. Every sentence adds value, and the description is front-loaded with the core function. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and pagination. It assumes knowledge of comment structure from a sibling tool, which is reasonable. Missing details like error handling or rate limits lower the score slightly, but it is largely complete for an API tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions. The description adds context about the relationship between comment_id and get_tiktok_video_comments response, and pagination cursor usage. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description provides marginal additional meaning, warranting a baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies 'Get replies to a specific comment on a TikTok video as JSON.' This clearly identifies the action (get), resource (replies to a specific comment), and output format (JSON). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_tiktok_video_comments, which retrieves top-level comments.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states that both video_id and comment_id are required, and provides pagination guidance: 'Use data.cursor for next page; stop when data.has_more is 0.' This tells the agent when and how to use the tool effectively. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.